Did Clinton Start the Recession?

President Bush opened his final radio address of the year this way: "In 2002, our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and it was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office."

Bush concluded 2002 with the same dishonesty that defined his economic policy throughout the yeara mendacity that ranged from denying the tax cut had anything to do with the re-emergence of the deficit to arguing that the terrorism insurance bill would create 300,000 construction jobs.

Click to expand...

Unless I miss my guess, the recession did in fact start before Bush took office. Does The Slate ever print anything that counters the Left's agenda?

the stock market did start going down right before clinton left office but I don't think we were actually in a recession. would it have continued to go down? hard to say, but sept 11 certainly didn't help and if bush doesn't get something done he won't have a leg to stand on in 2004. right or wrong that will be the perception americans will have. after all the republicans control everything now, so they will get the blame or the credit.

So, if I get this right, President Bush <I>(the elder)</I> was responsible for creating this powerful economic growth. President Clinton was lucky enough to win the presidency campaigning on the slogan "It's the economy, stupid." and even though it took him eight years of incompetent management to do hit, he did succeed in ruining the economic growth just in time to lose the election to George Bush <I>(the younger)</I>.

Hot damn, you guys keep tutoring me this way and I'll make a good white male conservative yet!

<small>Speaking for those on the left, could we please have a date, any date, where Bill Clinton is no longer responsible and George Bush is?

Originally posted by -Ken <small>Speaking for those on the left, could we please have a date, any date, where Bill Clinton is no longer responsible and George Bush is?

Click to expand...

I think he has taken all of the responsibility. I have yet to see him dodge a situation. He won't blame himself for everything (and he shouldn't) but he doesn't blame Clinton as much as Clinton blames Bush.

IMHO, the collapse of the tech sector in March of the election year and the over-reaction of the Fed in raising rates every month (it seems) put the economy on the skids way before 9/11.

I still say that the economy runs in cycles, and whether Bush SR, Clinton or Dubya are president during these cycles is irrelevant in my eyes.

I predict with the same over-reaction of Greenspan in drastically lowering interest rates the economy will rebound big in the second quarter. Problem is, I don't trust Greenspan's ability to know when and how much to control it's pace.

It took him 8 years to screw up what his predecessor started and the Government court action against Microsoft started the tech industry to fold, but it needed to anyway. It was way over inflated in value.

The market goes in cycles and if this administration can keep it from tanking, it will be the first time it has recovered with out a full blown recession. I think inheriting this economy is just what will be needed for a true soft cycle of an economic trend.

[rant on]My gawd, there are so many things responsible for our econony, and the President is probably the smallest factor of them all.

Bush Sr. was doing fine, until he defeated Saddam, had to suck hundred of thousands of reserves out of their jobs and sent them overseas, then agreed to the largest military downsizing in recent history. Entire regions of my state were left devastated when no one was left to buy anything near the bases. Then the economy went south. I had so many clients who worked for Lockheed or Northrup lose their jobs and have to sell their houses, real estate (especially in California) then tanked.

Billy was the recipient of a tech and stock market boom that has <i>never</i> happened in our entire history. Unless you believe Al invented the internet, this had nothing to do with who was in the White House. You could lower taxes, raise taxes, interest rates, whatever, it didn't matter as long as people were doubling or tripling their money in stocks. Life was good and companies were hiring. And Uncle Sam was collecting his share.

All of a sudden, companies were once again expected to make a profit. What a novel idea, somewhat forgotten about in the 90's.
First the IPO's dried up, then the "funny" little accounting secrets came to light. It was all really just some sick shell game. Those that were profitable are still here, and those that never made a profit found the money spigots turned off. That's where we are now. Throw 9/11 on that, it really has nothing to do with Bush the later. Yeah, he cut taxes, but those with selective memories won't point out that to get the deal through Congress (remember the Dems controlled the Senate), he agreed to increase spending by over 4% in 2002. How nice, nobody has any Capital Gains to pay taxes on anymore, we're not going to take as much even if you did, but we want to spend more! Makes sense to me we're in a shithole of a place now. Ofcourse, now the only solution is to raise taxes again. What about cutting the damn spending! Could we try that just once in our history???[/rant off]

As usual my opinion is somewhat simplistic, but I concur in all you said. Each part together creates the whole, although some parts have continuing consequences. I still think a large part of any recession, besides the underlying causes, is the negative effect of the media. Bad news sells newspapers and ratchet up TV ratings. If we are continuing to stress the negative than no wonder the populace begins to feel the foreboding effect and consequently become spendthrifts. There is such an amazing difference between the class that can afford to ride out the recession and the class that is barely holding on. Often the difference is only 10K to 20K a year.

Our income (my family) has been reduced by 50% and four people living on only 25K is a difficult task. Especially since we are house rich and money poor. 8K goes automatically for the house and 4K goes for medical bills for my wife. When you add in the insurance for the cars (2) and the house, well you can see how difficult it becomes. Not much left for food or clothing.

Of course recession or not, my situation will not change. I am so grateful to have been employed for so long. But others, with less skills have a much more difficult road to travel. No matter how sarcastic Rush Limbaugh may be on chiding people to get of the droll, flipping hamburgers will not sustain a family of 4.

I hope my prediction is correct, and unemployment starts dropping down and the economy enters a growing and an optimistic change.

Ethics, it was pretty devastating on several towns and small cities here. It may have been a drop in the bucket in the larger scheme of things, but we've had several communities go seriously into the dumper behind this.

Even several years later, cities like San Bernardino can't seem to get out from behind it due to loss of business and tax base. With the decline of that particular city, what rushed in to fill the void wasn't pretty.

Originally posted by Coot Ethics, it was pretty devastating on several towns and small cities here. It may have been a drop in the bucket in the larger scheme of things, but we've had several communities go seriously into the dumper behind this.

Click to expand...

Oh, I am sure it did, and I didn't want to sound crass and uncaring. I was focusing on the national front though. While I think it was horrid, I don't think it had a huge impact on the rest of the US.

Originally posted by InsAgt Of course, now the only solution is to raise taxes again. What about cutting the damn spending! Could we try that just once in our history

Click to expand...

One of the few things about economics that I figured out years ago was the only way to control spending is to give them less and outlaw them from spending what they don't have.

One idea I always liked, (but no one else does apparently), is to leave taxes basically where they are and say OK, you cannot increase spending for the next five years. Then after the five years we evaluate what we want to do from that stand point on.

One thing for sure the more money you give to them the more they will spend.

Economically, the only difference between the Dems and the GOP is how and what they waste our money on.

Originally posted by Jedi Writer One of the few things about economics that I figured out years ago was the only way to control spending is to give them less and outlaw them from spending what they don't have.

One idea I always liked, (but no one else does apparently), is to leave taxes basically where they are and say OK, you cannot increase spending for the next five years. Then after the five years we evaluate what we want to do from that stand point on.

One thing for sure the more money you give to them the more they will spend.

Economically, the only difference between the Dems and the GOP is how and what they waste our money on.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Raelians can clone you about 30 or 40 million times and then we can make this a reality. Now I have to put my cynic hat back on and crawl into my hole.

First, most of you are dead right, it is the result of many things and certainly not one man in the presidential chair. If you wanted to blame anybody, blame congress. They have the power to change, the president just approves what they do.

It is some flux, some policy, and changing it does not happen immediately. True national economic swing takes 7 years, on average. Any economics professor will tell you about that. There are quick fixes available, but they're not stabilizing.

And lastly, I agree wholeheartedly about the bubble bursting earlier than some want to say. The MS DOJ suit was the beginning of the end for the tech sector; when people starting looking hard at MS, they started looking hard at all tech stocks. Well before the election.

Lastly, I want to say how refreshing it was reading through this thread, as opposed to other economic threads I've read. Less political bashing and more analysis.